JOURNALhttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com
Institute for Peace in PartnershipSat, 06 Jan 2018 00:10:57 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.png JOURNALhttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com
Final Step of the Institute for Peace in Partnershiphttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/final-step-of-institute-for-peace-in-partnership/
https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/final-step-of-institute-for-peace-in-partnership/#respondWed, 04 May 2016 12:42:15 +0000http://ippjournal.wordpress.com/?p=983Read More]]>On Thursday the 28th of April, the Institute for Peace in Partnership (IPP) presented its findings and recommendations to its clients Dr. Rory Keane, Head of the United Nations Liaison Office for Peace and Security, and his assistant Annika Kohnert. The Institute for Peace in Partnership’s findings derived from a long and enriching research process, summarized in a 40-pages report and 3-pages policy brief. Paul Grossmann and Ingrid Silalahi offered a professional presentation of the findings, concluding with the three main recommendations of the report. First, IPP recommends establishing a UN-EU database that allows mutual understanding of each organization’s culture, structures, procedures, concepts, and terminology of peacekeeping and crisis management, as well as outlining the modalities and standards for UN-EU cooperation in peace operations. Second, IPP suggests organizing a strong outreach campaign to EU capitals in order to clarify UN Command and Control working methods and the improvements that took place in this field. Third, IPP advises the use of the UN peacekeeping budget to finance the deployment of EU Battlegroups under UN Command and Control, in support of UN peace operations.

After the presentation, the clients provided us with honest feedback and insightful remarks on IPP’s work, including both the final written product and the presentation. Dr. Keane first provided us with general comments on the think tank. Starting with the area of teamwork, Dr. Keane highlighted the fact that teamwork skills can always be improved and stressed the need for constant reflection and communication in order to be more successful in the future. He further stated that there are four personality types, all represented in one team. The perfect team has all four types, namely the active, the passive, the analytical and the reflective team members. It is the main challenge of teamwork to include all characters in the process and consolidate the different perceptions and views.

Furthermore, Dr. Keane stressed the importance to produce a high-quality written product, as “writing survives” in contrast to presentations. Especially the policy brief and the executive summary should be of high quality as most professionals don´t have the time to read the whole document. Moreover, the client was impressed by the variety of the primary sources used by IPP in its report. About 16 interviews with high-level experts and officials from the peacekeeping field had been conducted, which provided the group contribution with valuable in-depth knowledge. Additionally, he was impressed by the conference organized by the IPP, as he heard of it at the offices of the European External Action Service. The client was also impressed also by content and variety of articles of blog post. Concerning the presentation, the client praised IPP’s professionalism and wording.

Dr. Rory Keane concluded that IPP’s written product was good, and the presentation was excellent, reflecting strong knowledge and hard work. He suggested that in the future, IPP should put greater emphasis on the methodology and critical thinking.

When it came to choosing the group having the best recommendation, the client chose the other group’s recommendation on joint AU-EU training facilitated by the UN, as it appeared more feasible. Nonetheless, Dr. Keane liked the idea of IPP to establish an online database, but he stressed the difficulty to get people to use databases in general. To conclude, Dr. Keane’s remarks were highly valuable for the Institute for Peace in Partnership, which members were very grateful to receive such helpful comments for their future academic and teamwork projects.

The Institute for Peace in Partnership organized a public conference on Wednesday 20th April 2016 on “EU-UN-AU Trilateral cooperation in Peacekeeping” at Vesalius College, Brussels, Belgium. The conference was held in accordance with the High-Level Panel on Peace Operations’ call for stronger global-regional partnerships. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon demanded to build on past experiences to establish a stronger partnership between the UN, the EU and the AU.

The conference aimed:

to engage experts, scholars, and students in a dialogue on how best to strengthen partnership between these three organizations in the field of peacekeeping with focus on short-term priorities and lessons learned from bilateral relations (EU-UN) (EU-AU) and (UN-AU) in peacekeeping operations;

to share experiences and challenges on peacekeeping.

to identify the basic principles, methods and strategies for developing a plan for a strong trilateral cooperation in peacekeeping;

Over 40 participants attended, including representatives from the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), the Slovak Permanent Representation to the EU, the European Commission, the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, and students across different universities in Belgium.

Bora Kamwanya opened the conference by welcoming participants, expressing IPP’s great honour to host such an important event with the presence of Lisa Sundstrom, Policy Officer, EU-UN Cooperation Crisis Management Planning Directorate at the EEAS and Lieutenant Colonel (LCL) Benoit Lot, Peace and Security Advisor, Pan-African Affairs Division at the EEAS.

Lisa Sundstrom made the initial statement, explaining that the EU-UN cooperation in crisis management has extended and deepened since the 2003 Joint Declaration on UN-EU Cooperation in Crisis Management and 2007 Joint Statement on UN-EU Cooperation in Crisis Management.

The bilateral cooperation is based on added value, offering mutual benefits, effectiveness and coherence in which the European Union is able to play a bigger role in multilateralism as it provides political leverage to UN.

Furthermore, Mrs Sundstrom took the time to elaborate on the EU-UN document: “Strengthening the UN-EU strategic partnership on peacekeeping and crisis management: Priorities 2015-2018”, which identifies seven different priorities for deepening EU-UN cooperation in the following year. To begin with, EU-UN cooperation aims to elaborate modalities for a Rapid Response (RR), which would facilitate the deployment of CSDP force in support of UN missions, or as bridging force. Second, EU-UN aims to provide support to the AU and develop a closer trilateral cooperation EU-UN-AU by supporting the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), along with the African Standby Force and African Capacity for Immediate Response. Furthermore, this strategic area aims to support the AU in training and capacity building for which on-going discussions are held regarding the potentiality of a police deployment. Third, the EU Member States seek to facilitate their contribution to UN peacekeeping by constantly providing niche capabilities, critical enablers, modern technologies and uniformed personal. Current discussions are based on the establishment of a possible platform to allow the UN to communicate directly with member states of the EU. Fourth, better cooperation in the areas of Rule of Law and SSR is needed through the establishment of a mapping study of UN and EU support efforts to SSR, which will better coordination and avoid duplication. Additionally, both organizations are currently working towards the development of a joint SSR missions with the AU. Fifth, informational and analysis exchange are maintained notably through Steering Committees that focus discussions on specific areas such as strategic reviews, cooperation in planning, etc. Sixth, the finalisation of the framework agreement on support and logistics needs to be facilitated because current situation constitutes a real challenge when it comes to the deployment of missions of both organizations in the sample place. Current discussions to finalize this priority are particularly based on mutual support in the field, and the hand-over of equipment. Finally, EU-UN works on the follow-up to the EU Plan of Action, and seek to continue the implementation of actions.

Mrs Sundstrom ended her address by reiterating the importance of EU-AU cooperation. Stating that EU-AU cooperation is key as most of UN peace operations occur in Africa. In light of this, it is crucial that both organizations develop a common understanding with its limitations and possibilities in order to bring tangible results in the field. For this to happen, smaller and context-specific projects need to be established.

LCL Benoit Lot took the floor and spoke about three topics. The first one elaborated more on the importance of EU-AU partnership, he then emphasised on how the trilateral cooperation would tackle today’s challenges in the EU-AU cooperation and finally shared some good experiences in trilateral cooperation.

LCL Lot started by clarifying that the cooperation in peacekeeping between the EU and the AU is quite peculiar as it is not only a relationship between two organizations managing their own peacekeeping operations in the same area but also a relationship between a donor and a beneficiary, with all the possible implications. The AU-EU cooperation is a classical one, in the sense that they deploy military operations in the same area (EUFOR). However, the currently deployed missions are: security sector capacity building missions (SSR), including EUCAP, EUTM, EUNAM. He noted that in this cooperation, there is little cooperation on the ground, re-hatting and handing over is not possible.

LCL Lot further explained that EU-AU bilateral cooperation is also done through the African Peace Facility (APF), which enhances the African Peace and Security Architecture, but is only achieved upon the request of the AU. He indicated that the African contingent is ready to launch tough combat missions that neither the EU nor the UN can do. In his perspective, this bilateral cooperation is facing a few challenges. The first one emanates from the AU because it has weak financial management capacities and it is unable to do the procurement fast enough. Moreover, it lacks efficiency on the ground, mainly due to its lack of training and equipment. On the other hand, the EU stresses on the financial resources and its training capacity and equipment for contingents is limited.

Furthermore, the EU expects the following for a better trilateral cooperation: More transparency when the AU requests financial, equipment or logistical support from the EU, UN or any other donor. Transparency would avoid overlapping and enhance a better burden sharing, along with improving cooperation between missions on the field and exchange of information. An area that could be explored is the creation of a liaison embedded officers between the three organizations. However, this last recommendation would not be viable because, contrary to the AU, the EU cannot allow an external officer to be briefed on its matters before the Member States.

Additionally LCL Lot went over the practical experience in the trilateral cooperation. In fact, since January 2015, the AU-UN-EU have had monthly cluster meetings on current and potential crisis situation in Addis Ababa (Ethiopa). The African Union Commission (AUC) and the United Nations Office to the African Union (UNOAU) together with EU delegations meet to share assessment of each other’s organization and identify possible joint actions. Secondly, there is a fruitful trilateral cooperation in the Security Sector Reform (SSR), aiming at building and developing the capacity of the AU in this area in term of technical, managerial and material resources. This cooperation works in the following way: it is financed by the EU, implemented by United Nations Office For Project Services (UNOPS), for the benefit of the AU. The main outcomes are the establishment of an AU SSR office, the organization of seminars and joint assessment of missions conducted in Guinea Bissau, CAR, Madagascar and Mali.

As a closing remarque, LCL Lot mentioned that the trilateral cooperation is still in an infancy stage. An enhanced trilateral cooperation could help us address some of the issues the three organizations are facing in peacekeeping. The first step should be the mutual understanding of each other’s organization. Finally, this trilateral cooperation should not be seen as the Holy Grail, therefore it should not prevent us “to tied up our own houses in order to improve our capacities”.

Our two speakers both agreed that the trilateral cooperation in peacekeeping was important for the three organizations. However, a common understanding is imperative. Besides, efforts need to be done from each organization in order to achieve this goal at the strategic, political and operational level.

The conference was followed by a light reception where our guest speakers kindly accepted to join and share more of their experience.

The Institute for Peace in Partnership would like to thank Lisa Sundstrom and Benoit Lot for honouring us of their presence and their fruitful insight. We would also like to thank Vesalius College for hosting this conference.

The Institute for Peace in Partnership is organizing a public conference on the “Trilateral (EU-UN-AU) cooperation in Peacekeeping”. The conference is intended to offer an opportunity for experts, scholars, and students to engage in a dialogue on how best to strengthen partnership between these three organizations, in the field of peacekeeping. The conference will focus on short-term priorities and lessons learned from bilateral relations (EU-UN) (EU-AU) and (UN-AU) in peacekeeping operations.

Overview:

Drawing on the High-Level Panel on Peace Operations’ call for stronger global-regional partnerships, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s demanded to build on experience to establish standing arrangements and procedures which can be applied flexibly when operations are sequenced or parallel, in September 2015. The United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), and the European Union (EU) must produce a clear and solid framework for cooperation to boost collective ability to manage, plan, and execute peace operations. Africa, where EU-UN-AU cooperation mostly took place (e.g. Somalia, CAR, Mali), has been the geographical focus of past experiences. What are the lessons learned from collaboration, and which are the priorities to achieve strong trilateral cooperation?

Speakers:

H.E. Ajay Kumar BRAMDEO, Permanent Representative of the African Union to the European Union,

]]>https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/april-20th-2016-moving-towards-au-un-eu-trilateral-cooperation-in-peacekeeping-at-vesalius-college/feed/0conference pictureippjournalAU and EU meet to discuss shared challenges for the futurehttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/au-and-eu-meet-to-discuss-shared-challenges-for-the-future/
https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/au-and-eu-meet-to-discuss-shared-challenges-for-the-future/#respondSat, 09 Apr 2016 12:21:50 +0000http://ippjournal.wordpress.com/?p=893Read More]]>The European Union and the African Union have built a partnership that continues to grow stronger and deeper. This relationship is based upon these frameworks: the Joint Africa-EU Strategy and the Cotonou Agreement.

The implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy follows a Roadmap (2014-2017) that divides it into five areas:

Peace and security

Democracy, good governance and human rights

Human development

Sustainable and inclusive development and growth and continental integration

Global and emerging issues

Having multiple frameworks consequently could bring complications, such as overlapping decision-making processes, that could be an obstacle to the coordination between the AU and EU.

Like most inter-organizational cooperations, the AU-EU is a mutually beneficial relationship. Both organizations gain legitimacy from cooperating with the other.

One of the most visible ways of their cooperation is seen from EU’s large contributions to the AU. In fact, the EU is the largest donor to Africa. In 2015, their cooperation totaled up to €337 million. This cooperation includes peace and security operations, capacity building, and cooperation in different thematic areas.

Peace and Security is one of the most important areas of cooperation. Mogherini notes that for more than a decade “the European Union through the Africa Peace Facility has committed more than €1.7 billion to support the African Union’s peace support operations, the African peace and security architecture, African Union’s mediation efforts and to make sure that the early response mechanism becomes operational.”

On the issue of peace and security, the dialogue goes beyond the AU Commission and the European Commission. Other bodies, such as the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) and the EU Political and Security Committee have regular meetings to discuss issues in peace and security, including the implementation of African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA).

On April 7, 2016, the two organizations held their 8th annual College-to-College meeting in Addis Ababa. At this meeting Mogherini stressed that their “partnership is much more than an institutional, political or even economic relationship our citizens and if you ask me which is the strength, which is the power of Africa, some might say the resources, some might say the other things, I say the people and this is also our human capital in Europe that it is our strength”. Furthermore, preparations for the upcoming Africa-EU Summit in 2017 were discussed. These discussions centered on the five development areas of the 2014-2017 roadmap. During the meeting the two organizations reaffirmed their commitment to one another and to their joint-cooperation in developing democracy and peacekeeping.

]]>https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/au-and-eu-meet-to-discuss-shared-challenges-for-the-future/feed/0070416_eu-au-college-meetingippjournalEthiopia’s Contribution to Global and African Peacekeeping Operationshttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/ethiopias-contribution-to-global-and-african-peacekeeping-operations-2/
https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/ethiopias-contribution-to-global-and-african-peacekeeping-operations-2/#respondThu, 07 Apr 2016 13:40:00 +0000http://ippjournal.wordpress.com/?p=865Read More]]>Ethiopia has a long history of participation in United Nations (UN) peace operations dating back to the 1950s. Ethiopia is one of the founding members of the UN and of the Organization of the African Unity (OAU), which is now called the African Union (AU) and is headquartered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The capital of the country is a hub to various International organizations, NGO’s and diplomatic representations, which undeniably makes it the political capital city of Africa.

Ethiopia has since then always endorsed the principle of maintaining peace and collective security both in the context of the UN and the OAU/AU. As a result of this principle, Ethiopian forces were engaged in several UN peacekeeping and Humanitarian missions throughout history. It has participated in peacekeeping missions in Korea, Congo, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia, Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia. It currently contributes 8297 troops, police and military experts to UN peacekeeping operations in the world and holds the position of the second highest UN peacekeepers contributor. It is the top African contributor and supplies around 8% of the UN peacekeeping force. Moreover, it is currently a leading contributor of female peacekeepers to UN missions. In part, this is a result of a rather strong representation of women in the army. Ethiopia also significantly contributes to the AU peacekeeping force in Somalia (AMISOM), according to the mission’s website it has provided 4395 uniformed personnel to the operation.

Since the creation of the UN in 1945, Ethiopia has adhered to the principle and policy of maintaining peace and collective security. This article will delve into three different UN peacekeeping missions (Korea in the 1950s, Congo in the 1960s and Rwanda in 1990s) in three different periods in which Ethiopia has successfully shown its commitment and ability to participate in peacekeeping operations.

Ethiopia has contributed to the UN peacekeeping forces in Korea (1951-1954). In 1951, some 6000 soldiers of the Imperial Guard of Ethiopia, renamed for the purpose of the mission the Kagnew Battalion, were sent to Korea to fight with the UN forces as part of the United States led seventh division. Hence, Ethiopia was one of sixteen nations to intervene in the Korean crisis and was one of the few non-Nato states to contribute a contingent of UN forces in South Korea and the only independent African state to participate. South Koreans have greatly appreciated the commitment for peace, the heroism and military ethics that Ethiopian troops showed during their time in Korea. Moreover, this episode was very esteemed and praised by the UN community, and other involved countries. Hereafter, the world and largely the UN have had solid confidence over Ethiopia’s commitment and contribution for world peace and stability.

Congo was in a serious political crisis in the 1960s. Following the official request from the UN to intervene in the Congo crisis to stabilise the country, Ethiopia played an important role in 1960-63 by sending three brigades consisting of 10,000 personnel. Ethiopian Let. General Kebede Gebre, who was previously the commander of the Ethiopian Peacekeeping force in Korea, was nominated to be commander chief of the UN Peacekeeping operation in Congo, which included soldiers from over 30 countries. This showed how much respect and confidence the UN had at that time on Ethiopia’s commitment to world peace.

Ethiopia has also sent its military forces to the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) with the troops arriving in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Force Commander of UNAMIR, Roméo Dallaire noted that despite their lack of equipment, the Ethiopian contingent were incredibly resourceful on being able to do their job effectively with minimum equipment and had no reluctance to help local farmers harvest their fields.

The Ethiopian government continues to reiterate its commitment and willingness to make UN peacekeeping contributions. To this day, Ethiopia is still present in numerous UN peacekeeping operations in Darfur (UNAMI), in Sudan (UNISFA), in South Sudan (UNMISS), in Liberia (UNMIL) and in Ivory Coast (UNOCI). It also contributes to the AU peacekeeping mission in Somalia (AMISOM). It is seen by the Ethiopian government to be a significant instrument for following different foreign policy and national security objectives, particularly to stabilise the sub-region and Africa. Even though Ethiopia’s peacekeeping contribution is militarily substantial, a major challenge for increasing police contributions is the problem of language skills that needs to be improved according to UN experts. The Ethiopian government is addressing this problem by having police officers trained in English at the British council in Ethiopia. Additionally, Ethiopia has a low presence in senior and middle level leadership positions in UN missions and in DPKO despite being one of the top contributing countries.

On a final note, since March 2016, Ethiopia began its campaign for a non-permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council for the term 2017-2018 and has used its extensive historical presence in peacekeeping missions to leverage and promote their nomination. In order to have other African states support their campaign, Ethiopian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tedros Adhanom stated during the African Union’s 26th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government that “Ethiopia has always responded to UN calls for collective action on international peace and security. Since the inception of the UN, Ethiopia has deployed over 80,000 military and police personnel to more than 10 peacekeeping missions worldwide.”

]]>https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/ethiopias-contribution-to-global-and-african-peacekeeping-operations-2/feed/0Women in peace and security UN WPS Act peace and conflict prevention gender equality rape weapon of war peacebuilding conflict resolution lysistrataippjournalinfographic_pay_play_updated_800x640.pngUNIFIL and the difficult political process in Lebanonhttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/unifil-and-the-difficult-political-process-in-lebanon/
https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/unifil-and-the-difficult-political-process-in-lebanon/#respondThu, 31 Mar 2016 16:11:25 +0000http://ippjournal.wordpress.com/?p=820Read More]]>The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is one of the longest peacekeeping missions in place, in a country facing internal difficulties related to its political system. It is also one of the rare “traditional” peacekeeping operations, almost purely military affair led by its Force Comander Major-General Luciano Portolano (Italy), whereas most other UN operations are multidimensional, with a strong civilian component and a civilian SRSG (Novosseloff, 2015b: 775). The longevity of this mission, coupled with the stagnating political situation in Lebanon and the difficulties generated by the influx of refugees in this country, raises the question of its suitability to resolve deeply rooted issues maintaining tensions between Lebanon and Israel. This article will expose the historical background and mandate of UNIFIL, its limitations and achievements, as well as United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s recommendations following his visit to Lebanon in March 2016.

Historical Background and Mandate

In the 1970s, tensions increased between Israel and Lebanon following the relocation of Palestinians in Lebanese territory. Attacks repeatedly took place against Israel and against Palestinian bases in Lebanon. On 11 March 1978, Israeli forces invaded Southern Lebanon following a Palestinian attack that Israel thought to be backed by Lebanon, which led the Lebanese government to submit a formal complaint to the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC consequently adopted Resolutions 425 and 426 establishing the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL I) on 19 March 1978. It aimed at overseeing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon, restoring international peace and security, and assisting the Lebanese government in restoring its effective authority in the area. It has been regularly renewed, and significantly strengthened in August 2006 by Resolution 1701 (UNIFIL II) following the renewal of intense hostilities at the Israeli-Lebanese border, with involvement of the Hezbollah. Its main objectives were to monitor the cessation of hostilities, restore Lebanese authority in Southern Lebanon – a previous goal that still had not been fulfilled – and continue facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid in the area. An important difference between the original and the enhanced UNIFIL has been its work to reinforce the Lebanese Armed Forces since 2006, which weakness had been to the benefit of Israeli forces.

In March 1978, about 6.000 troops were deployed in the occupied territory with personnel from Europe (France, Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Italy) in majority. In August 2006, about 15.000 troops were rapidly deployed, with important contributions from Europe (Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Poland). As of February 2016, 10.521 uniformed personnel are deployed in the framework of UNIFIL. UNIFIL’s command and control structure differs from other operations, as a result from French influence.

Limitations and Achievements

UNIFIL (I and II) has constantly been characterized by a lack of unified consent within the UNSC with regards to its creation and its deployment. This is explained by the diverging views and influences that UNSC members have towards Lebanon, which have consistently overridden the operation’s purpose. Still today, UNIFIL is maintained for political interests rather than to actually resolve this intricate and long-standing conflict (Novosseloff, 2015b: 775-776). Furthermore, UNIFIL originally suffered from a lack of communication with all parties to the conflict, i.e. Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). As a result, actors differently interpreted the mandate and pressure was not adequately exercised (Novosseloff, 2015a: 255). This difficulties clearly showed that consent of the parties is indeed key to the full implementation of a operation’s mandate, as later stated in the Brahimi Report (2000).

Despite complex circumstances and operating environment, UNIFIL was however successful in its local and regional stabilization role as well as provision of humanitarian assistance, which became the primary basis for its further maintenance (Novosseloff, 2015a: 254). UNIFIL has indeed contained the still ongoing conflict between Israel and Lebanon and provided a security buffer between the two countries. Since 2006, UNIFIL has improved with regards to cooperation and coordination with parties to the conflict, which has significantly defused tensions and prevented incidents at the border. UNIFIL’s establishment of a security environment will however need to be accompanied by an effective political process in order to achieve objectives that go further than only military ones. Indeed, without military and political robustness, the deterrence exercised and security provided by UNIFIL could vanish if parties’ interest in keeping the area stable simply fades away (Novosseloff, 2015b: 776-777).

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Visit in Lebanon

On march 24th, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has paid a visit to Lebanon for a two days official trip where he has been able to express his concerns for the country and the region as well. During his visit the president of the World Bank group, Jim Yong Kim and the President of the Islamic development Bank, Ahmad Mohamed Ali Al Madani, accompanied him. Their mission had the aim of trying to find solutions in order to improve the conditions of the refugees, to support the local communities hosting them, as well as to assist on diminishing the impact on Lebanon’s economy.

Ban Ki-moon first started his short stay with a visit to the Headquarters of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) where during a press conference he has been able to express his gratitude towards the people of Lebanon for showing support and being generous with the Syrian refugees. He emphasized the fact that the international community must absolutely support Lebanon for taking in more than a million Syrian and Palestinian refugees. He particularly wanted to congratulate the great contribution, support, and efforts that Lebanon has brought in terms of hosting refugees. Ban-Ki moon also seized this opportunity to call on other countries of the region to respect and fulfill their commitments to support Syrian refugees.

According to the Secretary General’s spokesperson, Ban Ki-Moon has then proceeded to meet the Speaker of the Parliament of Lebanon, Nabil Berri the president of the council of Ministers, Tammam Salam, and the Secretary general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants, Wafic Rhaime. During his meetings with top officials of the Lebanese government, the Secretary General expressed his concerns on the political situation in Lebanon. The secretary general has urged the Lebanese government to find a solution to the two year long vacancy of the presidency “in order for Lebanon to be whole again”, he said.

Ban Ki-moon ended his tour by visiting communities hosting refugees to see how are the conditions in which they live in and take not of their needs. He also paid a visit to the peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon and stressed the necessity to build a strong cooperation between the Lebanese and UNIFIL in order to maintain a stable security environment in this volatile region between Israel and Lebanon. Ban Ki-moon also emphasized the need to make the persistent use of the tripartite forum that includes Israel, Lebanon, and UNIFIL in order to peacefully resolve any conflicts between the two parties. Finally, the UN chief has taken the occasion to remind that the peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon has been quite successful these past years by having one of the lowest hostile periods in nearly four decades of UN presence.

Conclusion

Maintaining a peacekeeping mission and securing stability in a complex political environment is clearly an achievement that UNIFIL has fulfilled since its deployment in 1978. Nonetheless, cooperation and coordination efforts with local and national actors must be strengthened, in order to address root causes of the ongoing tensions between Lebanon and Israel. A clear and strong political process in Lebanon must be supported by the UN operation, which currently runs the risk of seeing its military robustness overshadowed by its lack of political substance.

]]>https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/unifil-and-the-difficult-political-process-in-lebanon/feed/0668701ippjournalThe UN and International Lawhttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/808/
https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/808/#respondWed, 30 Mar 2016 13:51:07 +0000http://ippjournal.wordpress.com/?p=808Read More]]>The promotion and development of the rule of law at the national and international levels is at the heart of the United Nations mission. Furthermore, the Charter of the United Nations, in its Preamble, sets the objective “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.[1]

The International Law interpretation matters. Its involvement establishes respect for the rule of law in its fundamental rights in human protection sector, sustained development and economic progress. In addition the International Law is the expression of constitution of a durable peace in the aftermath of a conflict.

The objective of the International Law is sustainability of the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. The domain of the International Law encompasses a wide range of issues of international concern such as the treatment of prisoners, human rights, disarmament, refugees, international crime, migration, problems of nationality, the use of force, and the conduct of war.

Moreover, the interpretation of the International Law is responsible for regulation of the global commons, such as the sustainable development, international waters, outer space, global communications, and environment and world trade.

The principle of accountability in front of the international law, applies to everyone under the United Nations capacity of power: from the State to individuals themselves. It applies equally independently adjudicated, and enforced. This is the fundamental concept, which drives much of the United Nations work.

To become a part of the UN legal system, a treaty party: a State must express its willingness to accept the obligations, and benefits which come with the membership, and it must “consent to be bound” by the treaty. Such willingness expressed by the State is usually done through signature and ratification of a treaty, or if a treaty is already in force, by accession to it.

Under the United Nations competences there are designed organizations dealing with the International Law. Organisations of a joint focal point for the connections, justice, and police in the rule of law in post-conflict and other crisis situations.

International legal instruments and treaties are developed by the specialized agencies of the United Nations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation -ICAO the International Labor Organisation -ILO, and the International Maritime Organisation -IMO, by the subsidiary organs of the United Nations, such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime -UNDOC, or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law -UNCITRAL, and by multilateral negotiating bodies, such as the Conference on Disarmament. There is a forum for the consideration of legal questions in the General Assembly. The primary forum is The UN Legal Sixth Committe. In the forum a number of international treaties and many international instruments have been adopted.

The overall coordination of rule of law work by the United Nations system is established and accomplished by the Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group, chaired by the Deputy Secretary-General and supported by the Rule of Law Unit. The Resource Group members are the principals of 20 United Nations entities engaged in supporting Member States to strengthen the rule of law.

Furthermore, to provide support from headquarters to rule of law activities at the national level, the Secretary-General designated the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Then, there is the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The legal disputes between States are referred to the Court. The Court also has the competences to provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised international agencies.

Furthermore, there are Tribunals. The ad hoc tribunals and United Nations-assisted tribunals have continued to contribute to promotion of accountability and combat of the most serious crimes under the International Law created by the UN competence. [2] For example, there has been a very popular case of the Special tribunal for Lebanon, with the continued trial of five accused with respect to the attack against Rafiq Hariri.

The International Criminal Court established in 2002, is another form of intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal. It is used to investigate violations of human rights under the international law, such as: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide.

Lastly, The International Law Commission established in 1948. The International Law Commission is the organisation with a mandate to undertake the progress and codification of international law under article 13(1)(a) of the Charter of the United Nations. The task of the Commission as the legal body is to prepare draft conventions on subjects, which have not yet been ruled by international law and to codify rules of international law in fields, where there already has been extensive State practice.

Overall the international law aspect is an essential part of the UN institution.

The Liberian struggle started in 1989 and since then it has encompassed two civil wars. The first Liberian civil war took place between 1989 and 1996. During this civil war Charles Taylor entered the country with a hand-full of well-trained Libyan troops and fought to overthrow President Samuel Doe who allegedly created divisions among Liberian by promoting his own ethnic group and encouraging the massacre of other groups.

For stability reasons, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) decided to intervene and did so successfully, since it prevented Charles Taylor from seizing the capital Monrovia. Following this, an interim government with Dr. Amos Sawyer as president was set up in Gambia under the protection of ECOWAS and the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), a Nigerian-led peacekeeping force. Despite all this, Charles Taylor refused to cooperate and continued the war.

In a country of approximately 3,5 million people today, about 1 million were displaced, 250, 000 were killed and 25,000 were raped. Taylor ended up being elected president in 1997 and two years later a second civil war started until 2003 when he was ousted.

Mandate:

UNMIL, which stands for United Nations Mission in Liberia was set up on september 19th, 2003. This mission was set up after the UNOL “the United Nations Peacebuilding support Office in Liberia” in force between 1997 and 2003. The inability of Liberia to build peace and the growing tensions between the government of Charles Taylor and its opponent made the country a battleground and in 2003 after Taylor’s defeat, the UN sent in a peacekeeping mission with the following mandate:

The protection of Civilian

Humanitarian Assistance support

Reform of Justice and security Institution

Human Rights Promotion and Protection

Protection of United Nations personnel

On september 19th, 2003 the UNSC Resolution 1509 authorised UNMIL. The Mission was to be carried out by 15,000 military personnel, to which 250 would be military observers and 160 staff officers. An additional 1,115 police officers were to be deployed in Liberia. The first UNMIL drawdown took place between 2007 and 2010, the troops number was lower to 7,952 troops and the police was raised to 1,375 personnel. On september 17th, 2012, the UNSC decided in the resolution 2066 that between 2012 and 2015 the military component of UNMIL should be decreased by approximately 4,200 personnel.

Drawdown of UN Mission in Liberia:

On March 2015, the Liberian government approved a transition plan to assume full responsibility of Liberia’s security by 30 June 2016. Now, a year later, the deadline for the drawdown is nearing and recently UN officials came together to discuss the transition and the measures that are still in need of support.

Farid Zarif, the current Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) of UNMIL, spoke during the discussion and said “The expected completion of the security transition on 30 June will be one of the most significant milestones for Liberia and the international community since the end of the country’s civil war and the signing of the peace agreement in 2003.” (UN News Center)

During the transition period, which commenced last year, UNMIL was still present and active in its role of supporting the Liberian government in strengthening security capabilities and creating long-term peace and stability in the country. This also includes UNMIL personnel joining government-led town hall meetings. By 30 June, UNMIL would consolidate its field offices into 5 regional offices and reduce its civilian staffing over 30% in the next two years.

The drawdown of the mission, which was decided by the UNSC, highlights the confidence that UNSC has in Liberia to continue the progress they have done since the deployment of UNMIL in 2003. Nevertheless, not all actors have the confidence in Liberia taking over all its security facets. Zarif recognizes this as he describes that “there is an increasing sense of unease and apprehension among Liberians across the board about UNMIL’s drawdown and the prospect of its departure” (UN News Center). Liberian President had also shown his concern in a joint letter with President Alassane Ouattara of Côte d’Ivoire, where they urged the UN Secretary General to request that the UNSC keep a “Quick Reaction Force” in both Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire until after the 2017 elections in Liberia.

Liberia clearly still faces challenges which they must focus on in order to successfully achieve sustainable peace, including creating fair and equal justice, genuine national reconciliation and unity and a firm commitment to fight corruption. The SRSG noted that “Liberia and the international community must not lose sight of the still arduous path to a genuinely sustainable peace in Liberia and the region, which will require longer-term engagement and support of the international community.” (UN News Center).

]]>https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/liberia-unmil-toward-the-completion-of-the-security-transition/feed/0UNMIL4771ippjournalMajor Jonathan Conricus: The first Israeli to hold a position at the UNDPKOhttps://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/major-jonathan-conricus-the-first-israeli-to-hold-a-position-at-the-undpko/
https://ippjournal.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/major-jonathan-conricus-the-first-israeli-to-hold-a-position-at-the-undpko/#respondThu, 24 Mar 2016 17:38:01 +0000http://ippjournal.wordpress.com/?p=787Read More]]>Jonathan Conricus, who is a Major in the Israeli Defense Force, is the first Israeli to hold a position at the United Nation’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Conricus has been serving quietly since November 2014 and has even received a service medal at the UN in June, 2015. His position at the UN consists in gathering information for UN forces while also doing risk evaluations of certain locations as an evaluation officer. The area he is currently operating in is at the heart of the MONUSCO (United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DR Congo) overlooking the Democratic Republic of Congo. He also exercises this position in northern Nigeria in the conflict against Boko Haram, Somalia against al-Shabaab, as well as in Ukraine where the pro-Russian separatists are fighting the people of Kiev. In regards to Conricus’s service at the UNDPKO, Danny Danon, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN has said: “We are very proud of the Israeli representatives at UN institutions. Despite attempts by anti-Israel elements to boycott Israel, its citizens continue to show Israel’s true face to the world and to contribute to the international community in a wide range of areas – technology for protecting peacekeeping troops, professional consultation on legal matters, and major healthcare aid are only part of Israel’s assistance for the UN’s humanitarian purposes. We are working to integrate more Israelis into the UN, and I call on more Israelis to join the campaign and become true ambassadors of Israel”. Israel and the United Nations have a deep and complex history – it will be interesting to see where their relationship is headed going into the future.

“Discover the Major Conricus, the First IDF Officer in a Position at the UN” 21 Mar. 2016 [http://lphinfo.com/2016/03/21/decouvrez-le-major-conricus-le-premier-officier-de-tsahal-a-occuper-un-poste-a-lonu/]

UN, “Maj. Jonathan Conricus Is the 1st @UNPeacekeeping Israeli Officer. This Week He Received a Service Medal at the UN: Pic.twitter.com/mExx6HaYvi” 08 2015 [https://twitter.com/israelinun/status/608028412167487489]

This month, a selection of experts answered three questions on the role of women in peace and security:

What was a major advancement for the role of women in peace and security processes?

What are the main obstacles to the integration of women in peace and security processes?

How can the UN boost the role of women in peace and security processes?

Professor Dianne Otto – Francine V McNiff Chair in Human Rights Law, Melbourne Law School (Australia) and Director, Institute for International Law and the Humanities (IILAH).

“A major advancement for the role of women in peace and security was the establishment of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom in 1915 and its ongoing activism for disarmament, gender equality and positive peace. In addition to that, the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 that emphasized on women’s participation (rather than victimhood) in conflict prevention and resolution and post-conflict peacebuilding.

Nevertheless, obstacles for women still exist in peace and security processes. One of which is the persistence of gendered ways of thinking at all levels of society whereby ‘men’ are assumed to be ‘natural’ leaders, negotiators and thinkers, while ‘women’ are assumed to be more emotional and domestically focused and therefore less capable than men in the public sphere. This gendered mindset also understands ‘armed conflict’ as largely a matter for men, and fears the involvement of women will be a ‘sign of weakness’.

Women’s role in peace and security can be boosted by international organizations’ support of grassroots, national and international women’s peace movements to determine and pursue their own priorities (including by providing funding) and ensure their experiences and voices are taken more seriously by international institutions and acted on responsively rather than in a one-size-fits-all manner.”

“I think that the major advancement for the role of women in peace and security processes has been the enactment of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security in 2000[1]. The Resolution urges member states and UN institutions to adopt a gender perspective on peace and security, recognising that women experience conflict in a gender-specific way and that women have a right to contribute to conflict resolution and peacebuilding at all levels. It was groundbreaking in the sense that it led to the appointment of a new Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict[3] and annual reporting by the Secretary-General. The Resolution has also led to the design and implementation of National Action Plans around the world. In general, the Resolution has been very successful in putting women concerns at the top of the political agenda of post-conflict countries. We have seen an enormous increase of percentage of women in Parliaments and in police and military forces.

Although UNSCR 1325 has certainly increased awareness among international actors about women and gender issues in armed conflict and created opportunities for new resources for women’s rights, success remains limited due to two kinds of obstacles: ideological and material. Ideological obstacles firstly refer to the international community’s conceptualization of women’s roles in conflict and post-conflict areas and the policy options available for promoting the role of women in peace and security, which are limited by the traditional feminine roles attributed to women[3]. Secondly, ideological obstacles involve the narrow understanding of security in UNSCR 1325 (focused on institutional and staff reforms), which does not encompass structural mechanisms generating inequalities (socio-economic prejudices, female personnel treated differently, given ‘female’ tasks, and discriminated). Material obstacles refer to the low number of countries that have adopted National Action Plans and lack of implementation by those that have done so. This has led to claims that the commitments towards the Women, Peace and Security Agenda is more rhetorical than real. In particular, the participation of local women in peace processes is very weak and there are almost no resources put forward to prioritise their concerns and make their situation better.

The UN is the first actor that has to comply with UNSCR 1325 provisions, which are primarily directed to UN institutions and UN peace operations. In order to boost women’s role in peace and security, UN Peacekeeping operations’ mandates need to be more explicit as to which specific actions they will carry out in order to boost the role of women in peace and security processes. For instance, the UN is leading the Syrian peace process since 2013. As rounds of talk have taken place in Geneva and will certainly take place again in the near future, thequestion is not if women shall participate in the talks, but how they shall be included in the process.The UN should make the participation of women therefore a condition sine qua non to the organisation and funding of the talks, according to the UNSCR1325 [4].”

Professor Sabrina Karim–Assistant Professor, Government Department of Cornell University (New York, U.S.A) and PhD candidate at Emory University (Georgia, U.S.A).

“There are major improvements in female participation with regards to peacekeeping missions since 1948. In fact, nowadays there are very few missions without female peacekeepers. This is a major success. Now peacekeeping missions have extensive mandates around gender, such as including gender equality in peace building efforts (i.e. prevent sexual and gender-based violence, increase women’s roles in the domestic security forces of the host country, etc.). Additionally, the all-female police units are a novel innovation for peacekeeping.

However, there is a persistent idea that women are suited for some jobs and men for others. Women still only comprise about 3% of military operations and about 10% of police missions. Additionally, female peacekeepers are more likely to be sent to the safest countries and not the ones where they are most needed. For example, female peacekeepers are less likely to be deployed to missions where there were high levels of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) during the conflict, to least developed countries, and countries that had higher levels of battle fatalities. This means that while female peacekeepers are supposed to be helping people, especially survivors of SGBV, they are not being deployed to the right places to do so.

To improve the situation, the UN would do well to go to contributing countries and help train females in their military and police formations. The UN could develop mentorship networks in contributing countries to encourage more women to apply, as well as change recruitment and promotion standards (such as for media parades, where women are recruited based on the aim of gender equality). Additionally, the mission leadership (Special Representative of the Secretary-Geneal, police commissioner, and force commander) must make gender equality a serious focus of the mission.”

[1] The UNSCR 1325 is the first of a cluster of 7 resolutions: UNSCR 1325 (2000), UNSCR 1820 (2008), UNSCR 1888 (2009), UNSCR 1889 (2009), UNSCR 1960 (2010), UNSCR 2106 (2013) and UNSCR 2122 (2013). It includes 18 provisions for the inclusion of women in all aspects and at all levels of peace and security processes, often organized under the four pillars of ‘women, peace and security’:(1) Participation of women in peacebuilding and reconstruction processes as well as participation of women in policy-making; (2) Protection from violence against women and gender-based violence; (3) Prevention of gender-based violence, including sexual violence committed as a tactic of war; (4) Peacebuilding so as to prevent the relapse of conflict.

[3]For example, UNSCR1325 understands women as “naturally” contributing to conflict resolution due to their innate feminine characteristics making of them great mothers, carers and peacemakers. This can have devastating consequences for women after war, because these arguments can backfire and put pressure on women to return to their traditional ‘feminine’ roles in caring activities at home. Additionally, essentialising women this way contributes to leaving behind a diversity of women experiences of war, such as those of women ex-combatants.

[4]The UN Special Envoy has also made explicit commitment to the importance of including women in the talks in an article in The Guardian, where he indicated that “Women’s leadership and participation in conflict resolution are critical for sustainable solutions. The engagement of women in shaping the future of Syria is more important now than ever before.” But, how are we going to make sure that the UN and its Special Envoy do more than empty words? With this purpose, the Women’s international League for Peace and Freedom made four recommendations: (1) ensuring a 30% women’s quota, the setup of an independent women-only delegation, and the inclusion of an independent civil society delegation with a 50% women’s quota at any negotiating table; (2) increasing women mediators directly engaged in the negotiations to get a gender-balanced envoys and teams and in the International Syria Support Group, and also increase women’s participation among member state delegations; (3) Formally-attached to the negotiations: officially-endorsed civil society consultative forum, 50% women’s quota and officially-endorsed broad-based public consultations inside and outside of Syria with women’s participation; (4) strengthen and increase support for the informal processes around the negotiations by ensuring women’s participation in track 1,5 initiatives, support advocacy campaigns, lobbying at the national/ international levels, ensure mass-mobilisation efforts to build movements, including media and online social media campaigns and support to grassroots initiatives and organised campaigns.